Shcherbakovskiy v. Seitz, 450 F. App'x 87

Shcherbakovskiy appeals after district court reinstated a default judgment and dismissed his complaint as sanctions for discovery noncompliance.
This Court previously vacated the default and dismissal in Shcherbakovskiy I and remanded for further findings.
On remand, the district court held Russian law did not bar compliance and found Shcherbakovskiy controlled IPT and the relevant documents.
The district court concluded lesser sanctions were futile and that dismissal was warranted under Rule 37 for willful bad-faith noncompliance.
The district court also considered but denied the opportunity to grant additional time to comply, reinforcing dismissal as appropriate.
This Court affirms the district court’s sanction as within its discretion and dismisses remaining arguments as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was dismissal under Rule 37 proper?	Shcherbakovskiy contends sanctions were excessive or unwarranted.	Seitz argues dismissal was appropriate given willful noncompliance.	Yes; dismissal within district court’s discretion.
Were lesser sanctions available or appropriate?	Lesser sanctions could have compelled compliance.	Lesser sanctions would be futile; dismissal was appropriate.	Lesser sanctions were ineffective; dismissal proper.
Did any Russian-law bar prevent compliance?	Russian law barred producing documents.	No bar; production feasible under domestic law.	Russian law did not bar compliance; not controlling.

Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 836 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1987) (ease of extreme sanctions when warranted)
Agiwal v. Mid Island Mortg. Corp., 555 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 2009) (willfulness and bad faith in noncompliance factors)
S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global NAPs Inc., 624 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2010) (nonexclusive factors for sanctions and discretion)
Shcherbakovskiy v. Da Capo Al Fine Ltd., 490 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2007) (vacate and remand for further proceedings on discovery)